Hi Barry, I don't think there is anything wrong with a collection at all. It may be a (fairly trivially) amount of extra work to populate if you're populating from a database, but as long as you've got a reason not to use a query or some kind of bean then go right ahead.
The OO purists will probably raise the issues inherent in providing access to data without encapsulating the access using getter methods, and the performance purists will quibble about the clock cycles you'll lose looping through a query to populate the collection, but if there is a reason (compatibility with flash remoting, avoiding queries as a public data type or just the fact that you don't LIKE queries) then go for it! Interesting information on C#, BTW. Thanks! Best Wishes, Peter -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barry Beattie Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Opinions on One-To-Many representation in OO what you say is true. in fact a query would be in some cases a better datatype for this beause of the ability to use a Query'o'query internally for simple wrapper fuctions for a get{child data}ById(), ByType(), ByName(), etc. the only reason about array'o'structs was the compatability with Flash remoting and the total removal of queries as a "public" datatype. part of this is translating what we're doing with C# back to CF. One of the limitations with C# is that, while a DTO may contain a dataTable to hold child data, querying that (eg: myTable.Select("id=5")) returns an array of data rows. But if you get the child data from a DataTable origionally, you cannot get another DataTable as the result of a select, unlike using a query of queries to get another query. but my question still stands. what's wrong with a simple "collection" datatype for child data? On 5/31/06, Brian Kotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It still just doesn't make any sense to me to translate a query into > an array of structs, when a query essentially IS an array of structs > already. There would be a definite cost to do this, and what would be > the benefit? Is there something I'm missing? > > Thanks, > > Brian > > > On 5/30/06, Barry Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > something simple: an array of structs, not full blown objects. > > > > eg: student ValueObject > > ========== > > name: string > > dob: date > > timetable: array'o'structs. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to > [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject > of the email. > > CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting > (www.cfxhosting.com). > > An archive of the CFCDev list is available at > www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
